2010 - 2011 Interps
 

Publisher’s Note: The National Federation of State High School Associations is the only source of official high school interpretations. They do not set aside nor modify any rule. They are made and published by the NFHS in response to situations presented.

Robert B. Gardner, Publisher, NFHS Publications © 2010

SITUATION 1: Three-tenths of a second remain on the clock in the second quarter. A1’s throw-in is “caught” by A2, released on a try, and the officials count the basket. The coaches do not protest, the officials do not confer and all participants head to their respective locker rooms. Upon returning to the court with three minutes remaining in the intermission, the opposing coach asks the officials if the basket should have counted since the ball was clearly caught and released with three-tenths of a second on the clock. The officials realize their error at this point. RULING: The goal counts; this is not a correctable-error situation as described in Rule 2-10. (2-10; 5-2-5)

SITUATION 2: A1 is discovered wearing an illegal headband during a live ball. RULING: Illegal player equipment shall not be worn and, if discovered, it must be removed immediately. If it cannot be removed immediately, the player is directed to leave the game. COMMENT: There is no provision to permit a player directed to leave the game to remain in the game by assessing a technical foul or granting a time-out. (3-3-4; 3-3-5)


SITUATION 3: A1 is fouled in the act of shooting and the try is unsuccessful. As the teams line up for the free throws, a double technical foul is called on A2 and B2. RULING: False double foul; the penalties are administered in the order in which they occurred. However, play is resumed after a double technical foul at the point of interruption. The point of interruption is the free throws awarded to A1 for the shooting foul; play resumes from the second free throw (as if the double technical foul never happened). (4-36-2b)

SITUATION 4: A1’s unsuccessful try for goal is rebounded by B1. As A1 returns to the floor after the missed try, he/she twists and then grabs the ankle and goes to the floor. B1 passes the ball to B2, who dribbles into the frontcourt and (a) attempts a try for goal which is not successful but is immediately rebounded by B4 and successfully scored; or (b) attempts a three-point try for goal which is successful. RULING: In both (a) and (b), an official stops play by sounding his/her whistle when the try for goal is released by the B player (player/team control ends on the release for a try). In (a), the successful try by B4 is not scored and play is resumed using the alternating-possession procedure. In (b), play is resumed with a throw-in to Team A anywhere along the end line. (5-8-2 Note)

SITUATION 5: Team A scores a field goal. A1 requests a time-out from the lead official at the exact same time that the head coach from Team B requests a time-out from the trail official. RULING: Both teams are charged a time-out. If both request a 30-second time-out, the time-out duration shall be 30 seconds. If one team requests a 60-second time-out and the other a 30, the duration shall be 60 seconds. Once a time-out is requested and granted, it shall not be revoked. (5-8-3b)

SITUATION 6: On the second attempt of a two-shot foul, the ball comes to rest on the flange. RULING: Alternating-possession throw-in; the free thrower did not violate the provisions of the free throw. (6-4-3)

Why? Seems to me you could be giving Team A a free shot. If you are going to do this why not just kill it as soon as B1 gets the rebound?

I would like to see their rationale as to why they want it sounded after the try is released. What's another second for a player to get a rebound or see if the try is successful?

Exact, huh? That's all I need to know. ;)

Tanner, the FED is giving us direction on how to handle these injury plays in R5-8-2NOTE. Been in there forever and hasn't changed.

1) If you think the injury is serious, kill the play immediately.
2) If not, wait to kill the play when the opponents "complete a play". And that NOTE tells you when a play is completed, by rule. It states that a play is completed when a team loses control. And a team loses control as soon as a shot leaves the shooter's hands.

Rules rulz...and we just follow 'em. And if you don't, and you let a team score a rebound basket when you should have killed the play, and you're maybe in a situation where you're being evaluated or that basket could make a difference in the game, you could find yourself lip-deep in doo-doo.

This will be fun to explain. I'm envisioning a 2 on 1 break B1 makes a beautiful pass to B2 who proceeds to miss the lay up. And B1 one follows up with a nice tip in (or quick put back) which we have to wave off b/c the ball became dead after the initial miss....
This will then lead to waiting for A1 to get cleared from the floor, followed by 2 FT's for Team A and the ball out of bounds for team A while A coach is now "seatbelted"

Who cares? Seriously? We're given explicit written direction by the rulesmakers on how to handle this particular situation. If a coach complains, you simply tell them that's the rule. It's no different than any other call in that regard. We can't control what happens next after any of our calls either. If the coach wants to throw a rang, hey, what comes out of it is now on him.

An official will never get himself into trouble by following a plainly-written rule. And as I said above, if we ever allowed the follow-up to count if it meant something or while we're being evaluated, your career might go on hold for a while.

JMO...and yes, I saw your smiley. Just wanted to make a point.

You may be thinking of the NCAA rule. The "rule" is exactly the same; however, the definition of when a play is "completed" includes an immediate rebound and put-back.

Why isn't this a correctable error? This is not a judgment call about whether the try was released before the sounding of the horn. This a rule being set aside and erroneously counting a basket. This is actually one of the very few situations that fit under "erroneously counting or canceling a score". What am I missing????

Why are we resuming from the second free throw? Are they considering the double foul to be a double free throw violation????? That can't possibly be right. So what happens to A1's first free throw?

The shooter still gets the first free throw... just poor wording.

You still shoot the first shot if it hasn't already been attempted.

It only means that the subsequent play resumes after the second free throw as if nothing unusual happened....the players line up on the lane and either rebound the ball or make a throwin as normally occurs.

Good question. Perhaps they're considering it a timing mistake and not a scoring mistake.

If that's what they mean, they made a clusterdexter out of the English language. You have to do some serious mental gymnastics to get what you said out of "play resumes from the second free throw".

"As the teams line up for the free throws..."

Should have read...

"As A1 is attempting his first free throw..."

Although,

I find these interps informative. It is clear there must have been issues with these rules for the interps to be addressed.

I pledge I will continue to follow all published rules and interps.

Who's with me? ;)

Sit 2. It is clear to me that officials are not reading the rule book.

I would put Situation 3 over Situation 2.

I stopped reading :D

The person who authored the ruling to that interp is an idiot and is totally wrong. :(

Strike the words "resumes from" and replace them with "continues after." That is how the NFHS should have phrased it.

No, that's clearly situation 6. :eek:

Ok, I'm not going to call names, but as far as I can tell, there is not even a debate on this one. No one has even suggested that the interp may be correct. (In contrast, there was at least some logic behind the backcourt ruling from a couple years ago, even if most of us disagreed with it.)

Am I wrong on that? Is anybody willing to argue for this ruling? If not, is there any "appeal" process for approved rulings? If there's anything at all we can do, we need to try to keep this one out of the casebook.

I agree with you, however...
 

This should be a correctable error, but it appears that the rule committee interp is different. The only case plays I see in the case book on this is regarding basket interference. The rule book doesn't explicitly limit 2-10-1-E to just BI, but they only give case plays that involve BI.

If they want to limit it in this way they should modify the rule book. As to an appeals process, I don't know the answer to that. There should be one, if one doesn't exist.

However, this is an official interp and unfortunately we have to live with it.

Erroneously Counting Or Canceling A Score ...
 

For years, the classic example of "erroneously counting or canceling a score" has been regarding the three point shot. We've been told, for many years, that if the officials, for whatever reason, fail to give the "touchdown signal" for a successful three point shot, that this is a correctable error that can be corrected within the correctable error time frame. After the time frame passes this error cannot be corrected.

Don't confuse this situation where the officials correctly signal the three point goal and the scorekeeper fails to count it as three points, which is a bookkeeping error that can be corrected until the officials leave the visual confines of the gym.

In my opinion, SITUATION 1 seems to be a correctable error, that is "erroneously counting a score", and it also appears that the time frame to correct this error has not expired.

Hopefully someone will contact the NFHS on this and they will come to their senses and reverse their interpretation, or at least give more detailed explanation of their interpretation.

So...
 

A1 is fouled with .3 tenths of a seconds or less (or more) on the clock and you fail to award the free throw. You give the ball to Team A for a throw-in. They throw it in and time expires. The teams and the officials go to their locker room for halftime. If you find the mistake BEFORE you hand the ball to a player to start the 3rd quarter, does the fouled player get his/her free throws? If yes, what's the difference?

What if this occurred to end the game and the coach (politely) talks to you about it as you are leaving the court? What do you do then? The game is over, but you are still on the court, so you can make the correction. How is that different from still having jurisdiction over the game during halftime.

The issue in this situation may be just not knowing how much time was on the clock. That would not be correctable.

The example of the FTs is not relevant because the FTs are merited regardless of the time showing on the clock.

A fellow official who I respect a lot has voiced the opinion that allowing the catch in this situation is analogous to missing a travel. They just missed the call, so it's not correctable.

I don't think I agree with that, because the travel is a judgment about where the ball was caught, or which foot is the pivot. In the NFHS interp, there is no judgment. Everyone agrees the ball was caught and everyone agrees that the clock showed .3 seconds.

So I disagree, but at least there is one voice out there who doesn't think the ruling is completely wrong.

I think the example is relevant. It's exactly the same. The rule was set aside incorrectly. In one case, a penalty was not assessed; in the other, a goal was incorrectly counted.

I agree the time on the clock doesn't really matter. My point was that it's the same window as in the situation.

It is not clear in the NFHS situation that the officials knew there was 0.3 on the clock. The sit. only states that 0.3 was on the clock. But, let's assume they did know.


Perhaps the 0.3 rule is to be treated not as a scoring rule but as a timing rule.....not that they didn't or didn't make the basket but that time must have, by this rule, expired before the shot was released. That actually is the historical basis for this rule.

In the case of a running clock play, you wouldn't go back and change your mind on whether a shot was nor was not before the horn after you count it, go to intermission, and return.

So, not observing the 0.3 rule is not counting the score incorrectly but judging the end of the period incorrectly...a timing mistake....not a correctable error.

This is a stretch, and not a convincing one at all. But I can't concentrate to give a good reason why, because I'm watching the ALCS at the moment. I'll check in again tomorrow.

Yeah, baseball puts me to sleep too.

You certainly may. There is even a case book play in which the referee thinks that the goal was not scored, but the umpire did count it at the end of the game and they left the visual confines. The ruling is that it is too late to correct this error, but it certainly is a CE.


2.2.4 SITUATION C: Team B leads by a point with seconds remaining in the
fourth quarter. A1 releases the ball on a try, but the noise level makes it difficult
for the covering official (umpire) to hear the horn. The umpire signals a successful
goal. The referee definitely hears the horn before A1 releases the ball, but does
not realize the umpire counted the goal. The officials leave the visual confines of
the playing area and are not aware of the controversy until the scorer comes to
the officials’ dressing room. RULING: Even though the referee could have canceled
the score if the officials had conferred before leaving, once the officials
leave the visual confines of the playing area, the final score is official and no
change can be made. In situations such as this, it is imperative that officials communicate
with each other and that they do not leave until any problem regarding
scoring or timing has been resolved.

What if the referee knew that there was 0.3 seconds on the clock and also observed and judged that the ball was indeed caught before the try was attempted, but he incorrectly thought that the rule was "less than 0.3 seconds" not "0.3 seconds or less" and so misapplied the rule to a situation which he properly observed?
That would be akin to seeing the traveling violation and calling it, but then enforcing the wrong penalty (perhaps awarding the ball OOB to the wrong team or counting a goal anyway after the travel because the player was fouled prior to the travel).
Your respected official's rationale does not work in this case.
It is certainly possible that the referee/umpire made the properly call, but improperly enforced the rule on the court.

What if A1 releases a try and while still the in air runs over B1 committing a player-control foul... the official calls the PC; however, he counts the goal.

The official certainly misapplied the rule so can it not be corrected even if caught within the time limit?

Excellent example.

Correctable Error ???
 

What? Isn't this an example of "erroneously counting or canceling a score" that can be corrected within the correctable error time limits? Color me confused.

Yes, Billy, both of us are saying that it is a CE for the reason that you state and may be corrected.

Please carefully reread the wording "can it not be corrected [?]."

Both of us are arguing against the new interp ruling.

Been Around The Block A Few Times Myself ...
 

Why are there so few of us arguing such? There should be a line of us all the way around the block.

I am in that line with all of you. I am quiet. I would just be repeating everything that has been stated.
Maybe I should speak up because I do work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
:D

Sorry to resurrect an old thread, but I did a lot of poking and prodding and got a friend of a friend to get in touch with somebody on the Rules Committee, regarding the correctable error interp. Here is the response that was given:

Thanks for the extra effort, Mr. Esteemed Colleague.

Of course, you know as well as I do that the response is about the most ludicrous thing that we've seen come out of the NFHS committee in the last 10 years. :(

An official not knowing or not properly applying a rule is EXACTLY why rule 2-10 exists. Otherwise there wouldn't be any correctable errors!

Of course, looking at some of the other interps, I'm not surprised. :eek:

I disagree. It usually occurs not becasue an official doesn't know a rule but because they either have incorrect information from the scorer or don't get the information. It is not a question of them knowing/applying a rule.

I completely agree. I have had two very obvious correctable error situations in my career and they were preventable if the table gave us the right information. Both I personally asked based on the foul total and was told it was one way when it was the other way. One we could not correct because the time frame had past. The other we caught in time but after the table realized they made a mistake.

Peace

NFHS Interpretation Of A NFHS interpretation ...
 

Thanks Scrapper1. Why sorry? We've all been waiting with bated breath for this explanation. I've lost a lot of sleep over it. Much thanks for the followup.

In my humble opinion, this NFHS interpretation of a NFHS interpretation is the male version of a cowpie.

In either case, Camron, the officials inadvertently set aside a rule. Whether they knew the rule but didn't get the correct info, or they forgot that you shoot free throws at 7 fouls, they "inadvertently set aside a rule", which resulted in one of the 5 infamous errors.

So while I agree with you that Nevada overstated the case a bit, I think he's correct in saying that not applying the rule correctly (which is what happened in the interp) is EXACTLY why 2-10 exists.

It's tied for first place.

3/10 sec ruling
 

[QUOTE=bob jenkins;695974]Publisher’s Note: The National Federation of State High School Associations is the only source of official high school interpretations. They do not set aside nor modify any rule. They are made and published by the NFHS in response to situations presented.

Robert B. Gardner, Publisher, NFHS Publications © 2010

SITUATION 1: Three-tenths of a second remain on the clock in the second quarter. A1’s throw-in is “caught” by A2, released on a try, and the officials count the basket. The coaches do not protest, the officials do not confer and all participants head to their respective locker rooms. Upon returning to the court with three minutes remaining in the intermission, the opposing coach asks the officials if the basket should have counted since the ball was clearly caught and released with three-tenths of a second on the clock. The officials realize their error at this point. RULING: The goal counts; this is not a correctable-error situation as described in Rule 2-10. (2-10; 5-2-5)
SITUATION 2: A1 is discovered wearing an illegal headband during a live ball. RULING: Illegal player equipment shall not be worn and, if discovered, it must be removed immediately. If it cannot be removed immediately, the player is directed to leave the game. COMMENT: There is no provision to permit a player directed to leave the game to remain in the game by assessing a technical foul or granting a time-out. (3-3-4; 3-3-5)

This is a correct ruling. The Federation did not make a mistake. You have to look at 2-10 & see what is correctable. This doesn't fall under any of the correctable areas. An officials judgment mistake is not correctable. It's no different than if you handed the ball to the wrong team and they inbounded & scored, and then after the half the officials realized what happened: too late, can't do a thing about it.

This is not erroneoulsy counting or canceling a score. That refers to the scorer counting a basket on a player control foul when the official cancelled the basket, or not counting a made basket as signaled by the official, etc.

This is simply an official's mistake...nothing more, nothing less.

What needs to be brought out here is one simple thing; the crew needs to cover this in pre-game & someone alert the other partners when the situation is about to come into play. There is no reason that the officials can't come together prior to the throw-in & say:"hey, we've got 3/10's left, they can't catch & release, only tap, so whose ever primary it is, kill it if it's caught & thrown".

I know the reaction is we should fix it, but just make sure that it doesn't happen. Have a great season!

The erroneously counting or canceling of a score portion of the correctable errors rule refers to when an official counts a three point shot as a two or vice-versa. The cases you have mentioned are scorer's mistakes which can be corrected at any time. Now if an official counted a basket on a player control foul, that could fall under the case of erroneously counting a basket.

This isn't really a judgement call in my opinion. This is the officials inadvertently setting aside a rule. No judgement needed to decide if the basket was released before time ran out because there can not be a catch and shoot with .3 on the clock. I don't really understand NFHS' interpretations at times.

Hi ejn. Welcome to the forum. I hope that it'll be helpful to you during the season.

Unfortunately, I'm going to disagree with your analysis of this interpretation. Just a couple of points.

But this is not a judgment call. Everyone recognizes that the clock showed .3 and everyone recognizes that the throw-in pass was caught before the try. There's no judgment involved whatsoever. They saw the clock, they saw the catch and they set aside a rule and counted the basket.

As Gamer pointed out, what you describe is actually not a correctable error. It's correctable, but it does not fall under the jurisdiction of Rule 2-10. What you describe is a mistake by the scorer, not the officials; and as such, can be corrected at any time before the final score is approved.

I agree with you completely on this. We get together at the end of the game to review the situation and "anticipate the play". This is one of the things we should remind each other about.

Let's try another way...
 

Ok,

Great conversation everyone. yes, erroneoulsy counting a score could also include an official counting a basket on a player control foul, etc., within the timeframes allowed by the rule.
I'll give you another play exampple that hopefully will illustrate why you can't correct that error of catch & shoot. (yes, it is considered by rule an official's mistake.)

5 seconds left in the half. A1 intercepts a pass from B1 to B2 along the baseline and dribbles towards the wrong basket. A1 picks up his/ her dribble and shoots at the wrong basket and misses. The ball hits the backboard and/or rim, and A1 rebounds and tries to put the ball back into the wrong goal. During this 2nd “attempt”, B1 fouls A1 on the arm. Both teams are in the bonus. The horn sounds and ends the half.
Do you:
A) award A1 2 shots for being fouled while in the act of shooting? (of course not, not really a legal shot.
B) Call a common foul & award A1 the bonus free throws?

Answer: neither: There is no foul on the play. The ball was dead when A1 touched the ball after throwing the ball at the wrong basket, thus committing a dribbling violation. A1’s dribble ended when A1 picked up the ball to attempt the 1st “shot” (not a legal shot). When A1 purposely, even by mistake, “shot” the ball at the opponents backboard or rim, (the rim is considered part of the backboard) it was the start of another dribble. The instant A1 touches the ball again, A1 should be called for the double dribble violation, and the ball awarded to Team B at the spot nearest the violation.

Case Book: page 74, 9.5

Now let's say that the official's erroneously awarded A1 the bonus free throws & A1 made both shots. If during the intermission, someone points out the rule mistake by the officials, or as you put it, the officials setting aside a rule, could you come back & wipe off the bonus free throws by A1 because you got the rule wrong or forgot about it: No...too late. The refs blew the call, just as they did when they didn't recognize the catch by the player with 3/10's left. You can't go back & enforce the rule after the fact when it is an officials error. Not recognizing the catch & throw is exactly the same: an official's mistake in not recognizing the violation on the last second shot.

Hope that helps. Have a great season & safe travels!!
-EJN

I don't view that as awarding unmerited free throws (which I think is the correctable error you're shooting for there). In your case, you have an illegal dribble followed by a "shot" and foul. The missed call here is the illegal dribble. That doesn't fall under one of the correctable errors. The foul call on the "non-shot" in of itself is a correct call and the free throws are merited.

there is no foul, it is not a correct call. It's the same as missing the catch and shoot.

There IS a foul because you said there was a foul in the situation and there's nothing incorrect about calling one. The incorrect part is missing the illegal dribble that preceded the foul.

It's not the same as missing a catch and shoot. In that play, a basket was counted erroneously counted by virtue of the officials setting aside the .3 rule. In your play, the foul call by itself isn't incorrect, rather the missed violation that preceded it was a no call incorrect. Not the same play.

But you cannot go back and retroactively make that call. That's not correctable.

It might be an incorrect call, but once you've made it and penalized it, you can't change it. It's an official's error, not a correctable error. That'd be like calling traveling and then later saying "nevermind". Don't work that way.

SNL Trivia For $100 Alex ...
 

Are you confusing Emily Litella and Roseanne Roseannadanna?

DOH!! Nevermind!

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dai...%20LITELLA.jpg